On Self-Rationalization and Justification for Moral Lapses
We usually get what we want… somehow.
Posted Sep 7, 10:22 am in business models, consumerism, economics, experiences, human nature, law, marketing, politics
Some time back, I was sharing an office with someone, and had a shelf next to my desk that I had placed a few books on. One day, I came in to find that the shelf had been moved next to the other guy’s desk, and my books had been tossed upon my desk, along with a note explaining why my officemate needed that shelf more than I did, and how I would be able to get another shelf from some other person in the office if I really needed a shelf (this, of course, invites the question of why he didn’t get the shelf himself from some other person to begin with).
The rationalization in his head followed this trajectory:
1) I want a shelf for my things.
2) There’s a shelf over there.
3) And it only has a few books on it.
4) Given that it only has a few books on it, clearly the owner doesn’t really need that shelf.
5) Given that he doesn’t really need it and I do, I really deserve that shelf more than he does.
6) It’s wrong for him to have that shelf when I need it so much more.
7) I’m just going to take the shelf since I will receive greater utility value than him.
You can see how such self-rationalizing logic has a way of subverting standard social norms such as “ownership” and “right to use.” I was somewhat bothered by this turn of events, but once I started thinking about it, I realized that such behavior happens all the time, and enters into some of our most proverbial ethical dilemmas.
The question of Is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your family?, for example, is another similar ethical quandary that enters into our popular consciousness.
However, one of the most prevalent examples of this in recent times is the issue of music downloading through P2P networks. The tech-savvy youth of the world, on the whole, have absolutely no problem with downloading copyrighted music from the internet (full disclosure: I have also done it before). This is despite the fact that most of the same people probably recognize stealing items from local stores as morally wrong.
But, comes the argument, this isn’t really theft. In a theft, someone is deprived of an item because someone else takes it. Here, something is being duplicated so I have a copy and the original owner still has his copy.
True. Yet, one could make the same argument about stealing cable, and I have not heard anyone argue that this is morally sound. After all, there are cable companies who have large amount of fixed assets tied up in cable lines, maintenance, and other expenses that come part and parcel of delivering cable. If everyone stole cable, clearly the cable television system would collapse. Is the same not true for the music industry?
Well yeah, but the music industry hasn’t adapted to changes in the market and the way that consumers want to shop.
Maybe, but in every other sphere of the consumer economy, if consumers don’t like the way that a company does business, they simply don’t do business with them. Why is it that you feel justified in stealing property in this case? If you really want a new Ford car, but you really hate Ford dealers, how is it that you are justified in stealing a Ford from their property so as to bypass interacting with the dealers?
Look, I’ll admit that this does hurt the record companies, but you know what? They deserve it. Those suit-and-tie business guys are all about the money; they couldn’t care less about the music, and in fact they’ve have done everything in their power to destroy music! I support the artists, and the record companies just screw them over anyway. Artists only get, like, 10 cents on every CD sale anyway. They make their real money off of touring.
But what gives you the right to decide that the artist shouldn’t have that 10 cents per CD? Sell a million albums, and that’s a lot of money. Isn’t that their decision to make?
Artists who say that are just being greedy! They’re already rich and famous and now they want even more money! Can you believe these guys?
But that’s their job. Surely you’d want to be paid for things you took time to develop and sell, right?
No way! I’m above that. If I were an artist, I’d be happy that people were listening to my music and coming to my shows. It’s all about the art, dude.
Just because it’s ‘all about the art’ for you, doesn’t mean that it’s ‘all about the art’ for everyone. Would you still feel the way you do once you were depending on that income for your livelihood, and your continuing ability to fund that livelihood?
Of course! I’m not looking to make money off records. I’d make my money of touring, and connecting with my fans, and selling merchandise and stuff.
What if you didn’t want to tour?
But that’s how you make money.
That’s one way you make money. The other part is selling records. What if you only want to sell records and that’s all? And don’t you, as the artist, have a right to choose the channels through which you distribute?
Ok, let’s stop this right here. You can see where this is going. Ultimately, the P2P downloader in this conversation is finding ways to justify his decision to download music. He gives all kinds of rationalizations for it, from blaming the companies, to blaming the artists, to giving ideological reasons, to technical explanations of why it’s not bad.
Clearly, this argument was built backwards. The downloader started with the idea of I want to have free, unrestricted access to any music I want whenever I want. From there, he found ways to justify any behavior that led to him getting that. This involved dismissing valid counterarguments through insular and self-justifying means that, while they might apply to his own worldview, are not necessarily shared by those who he is taking from. Nevertheless, he is able to project this ideological view of “how things should be” onto the world, and then convince himself that what he’s doing is actually the valorous thing to do, bravely fighting against an archaic system that enslaves and rips off consumers— when all he really wanted was the music to begin with.
Thus, a base drive to get free music has now taken on an ideological bent and has morphed into some kind of jihadist war on record companies. The guy could just have just admitted he wanted the free music. Why bother blowing all that smoke? Well, he doesn’t realize consciously that he is blowing smoke.
Apologists have this same problem. They’ve decided that George Bush, or Hillary Clinton, or Alex Chiu, or James Dobson, or whoever is right. Now that they’ve come to this conclusion, they can no longer stop to evaluate events critically. Suddenly, they find themselves excusing all kinds of behavior that they would skewer someone else for; and not only will they overlook this behavior, they will defend it— passionately! After all, they wouldn’t want to admit that they were wrong about this person this whole time.
Strange thing, this cognitive dissonance.
Further reading:
Mistakes Were Made by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson. Harcourt, 2007.
Comment [2]
On the Politics of Smoking Bans
Why the hostility towards public smoking when cars abound?
Posted Jun 27, 07:40 pm in environment, law, politics
Many cities are jumping on board legislated smoking bans, and it would appear that this trend is gaining a base, and communities all over the country are pushing to adopt such regulations. Aside from the political issues involved, there is something deeply ironic about places like L.A. and New York having instituted smoking bans. These are cities, after all, that have ranked #1 and #8 respectively on the American Lung Association’s list of the cities in the US with the worst air pollution.1
Anti-smoking activists will argue that it is the right of people to be in environments where they are not forced into prolonged exposure to airborne toxins. I agree with this. But the fact that people in L.A. and New York are making such arguments seems somewhat irrational given their choice of residence. If the worst exposure that people are getting to airborne pollution in L.A. is from cigarette smoke in bars, I’d say they’re doing pretty well. But the truth is, L.A. is a cesspool of air pollution— so much so that residents are often given warnings about not going outside because of the level of particulate matter in the atmosphere. How, then, can someone make this argument with any conviction? Everyone in LA is constantly being bombarded with carcinogenic smoke; frankly, cigarette smoke is the least of their worries.
I can think of about a hundred different industries that cause more mayhem than the cigarette industry. But it’s the automobile industry that I would probably put at the very top of a list that environmentalists and health care professionals should target. Breathing cigarette smoke for an hour in a bar seems like a walk in the park compared to living in an environment where cars are spewing out smoke all day long— you know, like they do in every major city in the world.
Anyone concerned about cigarette smoke should be triply concerned about smoke from vehicular transport. We look down on cigarette smokers for their inconsiderate behavior, what with the way they blow their foul smoke all over and ruin our precious air, but we rarely hold motorists to the same standard. Alas, our society has invested much more energy and political leverage into the war on drugs (yes, tobacco does count as a drug) than into the war on pollution, and we have this to thank for the fact that the intensity of our anger has been misplaced on cigarettes and not other, more common and more substantial forms of air pollution.
Few people are up in arms about getting cars off the roads despite the fact that they are like massive cigarettes billowing out megatons of nasty, toxic smoke, and blanketing not just those in the direct vicinity of them— like cigarettes do— but entire towns and regions (just ask the good people of Fresno, California, who are in the unenviable position of being the downwind recipients of the Bay Area’s smog). Why is there no cry for cars to be ostracized from our cities, or at least their presence minimized somehow, like London did by charging exorbitant rates for cars to enter certain parts of the city?
Perhaps it is because as Americans, we have accepted, embraced, and even encouraged motor vehicles as a way of life. Our cities have been designed to not only accommodate cars, but to necessitate them. There is little evidence to suggest that the planners of most American cities and towns have ever considered the idea that building their communities to revolve around automobiles might not be such a great idea. And now, decades later, when planners are starting to question the wisdom of that decision, we are pretty much stuck with those results and are paying the price at the pump, in our physical health, and in our environment.
Yet, despite this, we tend to view vehicles as immutable parts of American life, and have never given pause to consider whether either full or partial bans of vehicles, or “congestion charges” are possible in our cities. It’s not nearly as radical as it sounds— there is a huge environmental price we have to pay for having those cars there. They are loud, they discourage public transit, and they pump out a hell of a lot of smoke— much more than a few cigarettes ever could. Getting them out would confer benefits on many more people and in a much more pronounced way than smoking bans. So again, why do so many city residents want to implement smoking bans but nary a peep is heard about instituting some form of vehicular regulation?
Despite what I consider its misguidedness, in a way, cigarette bans are a step in the right direction if we are looking strictly at environmental concerns and not those regarding personal liberties. We all need air to breathe, and currently, very few private citizens give our air quality much thought outside of those people who are directly affected by it; focusing air quality efforts into food service establishments might just be the most realistic way to plant the seed, and get the public thinking about air quality issues.
But then there are the pesky political issues that arise. A very heated debate rages on about how such bans relate to Constitutional rights, personal liberties, and the rights of businesses to operate the way they want. Many pro-smoking advocates argue: Why should the government be allowed to tell someone how to run their business? Shouldn’t business owners have the decision as to whether they should allow smoking or not, since smoking is not illegal? If customers do not like dealing with smoke in establishments that allow it, won’t they just avoid that establishment? And shouldn’t consumers decide what businesses they frequent?
I find these counterarguments rational and compelling; at least in the context of the complex modern world. Don’t get me wrong, I love having clean air, despise the smell of cigarette smoke, and I would rather not have to deal with smoke anywhere on the planet— especially considering that it’s my air (and the world’s collective air) that is being degraded by someone else without my or our input or just benefit. But we suffer from such tragedies of the commons all the time, and on the totem pole of environmental offenses, cigarettes are charting somewhere towards the bottom; we let companies like Monsanto get away with so much more socially damaging acts than a little air pollution that it seems ludicrous that we should hold cigarette smokers’ feet to the fire instead of going after the big dogs of environmentally and socially damaging behavior.
Yet we go on, content living in our large polluted cities, accepting vehicular air pollution as a way of life, and cursing cigarette smokers for destroying our precious air. All the while, we watch idly as massive diesel trucks and cars of every variety permeate our cities and contaminate every whiff of our air.
Sources:
1) American Lung Association, State of the Air, 2008.
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2008/most-polluted/
2) Wikipedia, “Times Beach, Missouri”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Beach,_Missouri